Intent to sue sparks outrage

Published 4:31 pm, Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Reading the front page of the Connecticut Post I am both disgusted and compelled to write. It was only a matter of time after the horrific tragedy in Newtown before the attorneys began circling, but it only took two short weeks.

A New Haven attorney was seeking permission from the state to sue for $100 million on behalf of a 6-year-old student at Sandy Hook (The suit has since been withdrawn.) The article states that the child was traumatized after she heard "conversations, gunfire and screaming" transmitted through the school's intercom system on the day of the attack. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but wasn't one of the teachers hailed as a hero for turning ON the loudspeakers that horrible day, allowing the other teachers to hear what was happening and thus allowing them to act quickly and save lives? Was that not standing together and protecting the children, which this attorney (and, if we are to believe that he was approached by this child's parents and not the reverse, as he says), claims was not done that day?

I can only hope that the state's claims commissioner will reject this outrageous claim and any others that will certainly be filed in the coming weeks and months. Please recognize them for what they are, an opportunistic way to make a lot of money on the backs of families who have suffered an unimaginable tragedy. It is time to put a stop to these lawsuits, which are destroying our country in innumerable ways.

Josephine Lifrieri

Shelton

•

I feel compelled to respond to an article entitled "First intent to sue filed in shootings." I am outraged and appalled that this attorney had the unmitigated gall to even attempt to file a lawsuit against the good people of Newtown and the taxpayers of Connecticut for $100 million on behalf of one child. Someone please enlighten me: How is any amount of money going to solve her emotional trauma? Are we forgetting about the other 400-plus students at Sandy Hook who were also traumatized by what they saw or heard? How about the first responders, all of whom were exposed to such extreme carnage, the likes of which no one should ever have to witness? I do not see anyone stepping up to help these severely traumatized people. In fact, they have to use their vacation and sick time to get counseling for what they experienced and I'm sure most will never be the same again. How unfair is that?

The unspeakable act of evil is by no means the city's or the state's fault. All safety procedures were in place at the school on that fateful day. Doors were locked as is the norm for all schools, but the shooter proved that all the safety measures in place will not stop a deranged person from inflicting harm on his intended victims.

If you really want to change gun control laws then sue the ones who are truly responsible -- the gun manufacturers. Only then will you see the changes you seek. As a responsible gun owner I am by no means against the Second Amendment, but the Constitution does not state what kind of arms we can bear. The type of weapons used here should never be manufactured for use by private citizens, only for our military or police officials. Besides, any firearm can kill, so why would you ever need one that can fire off 44 rounds per minute?

I have one final message for this attorney: Please go dig for your gold someplace else.